July, 12 2019, 12:00am EDT
Tell Rep. Adam Schiff to Remove This Dangerous Secrecy Provision From This Year's Intelligence Bill
WASHINGTON
Largely unnoticed until yesterday, the CIA is pushing Congress to pass a bill that will vastly expand secrecy laws, threaten press freedom, and prevent accountability for intelligence officials who violate the law.
This year's Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) contains a provision that would radically expand the definition of employees in the CIA and other intelligence agencies that can be considered "covert." Right now, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) only applies to covert officers who are stationed overseas within the last five years. As Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press explained, "if the changes advocated by the CIA are adopted, the law would indefinitely criminalize the disclosure of the identity of anyone with a classified relationship to an intelligence agency regardless of whether they have ever served abroad."
This provision was inserted into the intelligence bill by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and someone who claims to be a strong supporter of press freedom.
Critically, the bill would allow the Trump administration--and all future administrations--the ability to prosecute reporters who reveal these officers' names, even if those officers have tortured innocent people in clear violation of the law. In fact, the CIA literally cites media revelations about the CIA's torture program in its justification to Congress to pass the bill. That type of important reporting could be subject to prosecution if the IAA provision is allowed to move forward.
Dozens of press freedom and open government groups have sent a letter to Congress protesting the bill.
Freedom of the Press Foundation's executive director Trevor Timm released the following statement about the controversial provision.
The press is critical in holding intelligence agencies like the CIA accountable for breaking the law, and this bill is a clear attempt to stifle press freedom. It's an open invitation to the Trump administration to hide government criminality behind official secrecy and potentially prosecute reporters for revealing it. Anyone in Congress who cares about press freedom should vigorously oppose this dangerous bill. We urge Rep. Adam Schiff to do everything in his power to withdraw this misguided provision.
Please contact Rep. Schiff's office and tell him to remove the dangerous provision and stand up for press freedom ahead of next week's vote. The contact information for Rep. Schiff and his office are below. The House may vote on the IAA as soon as early next week.
Phone: (202) 225-4176
Twitter: @RepAdamSchiff or @AdamSchiff
Freedom of the Press Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to helping support and defend public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption, and law-breaking in government. We work to preserve and strengthen the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment through crowdfunding, digital security and internet advocacy.
LATEST NEWS
'Industry's Favorite Puppets': 16 Republican States Sue to Block LNG Pause
"The GOP will go to any length to please their Big Oil donors, even if it means driving up costs for their constituents and torching the climate," one campaigner said.
Mar 22, 2024
The attorneys general of 16 Republican-led states sued on Thursday to reverse the Biden administration's pause on the approval of new liquefied natural gas export licences, a move that was widely celebrated by climate and environmental justice campaigners.
The lawsuit, backed by states including Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, comes after the Republican-led House of Representatives also voted to reverse the halt on licences.
"The GOP will go to any length to please their Big Oil donors, even if it means driving up costs for their constituents and torching the climate," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media told Common Dreams. "This is just more performative politics from the industry's favorite puppets."
"LNG exports are key to expanding fossil fuel production in the U.S."
In its January decision, the White House said it was pausing Department of Energy sign-offs on new LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries so that the department could review the criteria it used to assess them, including the exports' impact on domestic energy prices and their contribution to the climate crisis. The move put the breaks on nearly 20 planned new export terminals along Louisiana's Gulf Coast, which would have released equivalent emissions to 675 coal plants and added to the pollution burden placed on local communities by the fossil fuel industry.
However, the attorneys general behind the lawsuit argue that the pause would harm their states and communities that rely on the gas industry for income, as well as the industry itself. They also claim that it is illegal under the Natural Gas Act, and that the "whims of activists cannot override" the act's mandate that the energy secretary must approve LNG exports unless they deem they are not in the public interest. Opponents of the LNG buildout have long contended that the new approvals are not in fact in the public interest given their contributions to the climate crisis, local pollution, and higher energy prices.
The lawsuit further contends that the pause violates the Administrative Procedures Act and a Supreme Court order that agencies not act on "major questions" without approval from Congress.In addition to a reversal of the pause, it calls on the court to "preliminarily and permanently" bar the federal government from "halting or attempting to halt the consideration of LNG export applications."
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, with the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming joining those of Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.
"The GOP pushback on this is a good reminder of what a big deal this announcement was," Henn said of the suit.
"LNG exports are key to expanding fossil fuel production in the U.S.," he continued, adding that President Joe Biden "did the right thing standing up to Big Oil and we don't expect to see him back down now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 24-1 Vote, Hawaii State Senate Demands Permanent Cease-Fire in Gaza
"Hawaii can be proud of its leadership role in carrying the movement to force an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza to the 'state' level," said one advocate.
Mar 22, 2024
In a near-unanimous vote, Hawaii's Senate on Thursday became the first state legislative body in the U.S. to endorse a permanent cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, adding to the mounting domestic pressure on President Joe Biden to force an end to Israel's monthslong assault.
The Hawaii Senate, which is dominated by Democrats, voted 24-1 to approve a resolution urging U.S. President Joe Biden and members of the state's congressional delegation to "publicly call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza and continue negotiations for lasting peace."
State Sen. Kurt Fevella (R-20) was the lone no vote on the resolution.
Fatima Abed, founder of the Hawaii-based advocacy group Rise for Palestine, said in a statement Friday that the resolution's passage was a "monumental accomplishment, and Hawaii can be proud of its leadership role in carrying the movement to force an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza to the 'state' level."
"But it is only the first step in a long road to peace and the promise of liberty and the equal rights Palestinians deserve," Abed added.
In testimony supporting the cease-fire resolution, advocacy groups estimated that Hawaii residents contribute roughly $13 million per year in federal taxes that are used to aid Israel's military, which has killed at least 32,000 people in Gaza in less than six months.
The Hawaii Senate's move came hours before Russia, China, and Algeria voted down a U.S.-led U.N. Security Council resolution that described a cease-fire as "imperative" but did not explicitly call for an end to the bloodshed. The three nations that opposed the resolution said they did so because the U.S. measure did not clearly demand a cease-fire.
According to a recent Reutersanalysis, dozens of U.S. city councils have passed resolutions calling for a cease-fire in Gaza as Israel's continued bombing and obstruction of aid fuel one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history.
As of last week, at least 78 members of Congress have called for a cease-fire in Gaza, a running tally by the Working Families Party shows.
Hawaii's two Democratic senators, Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, have both expressed support for a temporary cease-fire in the Gaza Strip—a call that falls short of the Hawaii Senate's demand.
The other two members of Hawaii's U.S. congressional delegation—Democratic Reps. Ed Case and Jill Tokuda—have not called for a cease-fire.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No 'Clear Message of Peace': Russia, China, and Algeria Vote Down US Gaza Resolution
"Only by ceasing hostilities we can alleviate the immense suffering and ensure that large-scale humanitarian assistance reaches those in need," said Algeria's ambassador to the United Nations.
Mar 22, 2024
Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S. resolution at the United Nations Security Council that called a Gaza cease-fire "imperative" but stopped short of demanding a halt to Israel's monthslong assault on the besieged enclave.
Algeria, which does not have veto power, joined Russia and China in opposing the U.S. resolution, which 11 Security Council members supported. Guyana abstained.
Friday's 11-3-1 vote came just over a month after the U.S. used its veto power to tank an Algeria-led resolution demanding "an immediate humanitarian cease-fire that must be respected by all parties."
Amar Bendjama, Algeria's ambassador to the U.N., said Friday that he was speaking not only for his country "but as a representative of the whole Arab world" as he explained their shared opposition to the U.S. resolution. Bendjama said Algeria proposed edits to the U.S. draft, but the final resolution left central concerns "unaddressed."
"We echoed the demands of millions of people and humanitarian actors for an immediate cessation of hostilities," said Bendjama. "Regrettably, the draft resolution falls short of our expectations. It fails to adequately address these main issues and the immense suffering [being endured] by the Palestinian people."
"Those who believe that the Israeli occupying power will choose to uphold its international legal obligation are mistaken," he argued. "They must abandon this fiction."
Bendjama, who cited the 32,000 people killed by Israel so far and the tens of thousands more wounded or permanently disabled, said the draft of the resolution "does not convey a clear message of peace" and "tacitly allows for continuing civilian casualties and lacks clear safeguard to prevent further escalation."
Russia's ambassador to the U.N., Vassily Nebenzia, argued the U.S. resolution was "not enough" and accused the Biden administration of "deliberately misleading the international community."
Outside analysts also criticized the U.S. resolution. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that while the resolution is "significantly stronger" than previous U.S. drafts, "it still falls short of a clear and unequivocal demand for an unconditional cease-fire."
Craig Mokhiber, a former U.N. official who resigned in late October over the international body's failure to respond to Israel's assault on Gaza, said the U.S. measure "is not a cease-fire resolution. It is a ransom note."
Instead of clearly demanding a cease-fire, the U.S. resolution proposed more ambiguous language expressing "the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire to protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering."
The resolution also tied support for a cease-fire to "the release of all remaining hostages."
Parsi said in a statement Friday that "undoubtedly, Biden's rhetorical shift in favor of a ceasefire is noteworthy, but the devil is in the details."
"The unnecessarily convoluted operative clause raises concerns that this shift is less straightforward than it could and should be," Parsi added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular